Does anyone understand this concept?

Question

Good government requires restraint, which is why all governments descend to tyranny.

This morning I was getting in the shower, and I smelled a little whiff of cigarette smoke drifting down from the apartment above. I ignored it.

This is the principle of free government. I don't like cigarette smoke, but I love not interferring in other people's lives.

The smoke wasn't killing me, it was just a temporary aesthetic inconvenience.

Can anyone explain to me how this pertains to democracy?

This is like an open ended philosophical riddle.

Terraform Mars is on point, but I want some enumeration. I want to see if someone can link up in a precise way with the idea I am implying.

GERTJANVDZ?? THE SMOKE WAS KILLING ME!! AAAAAHHH!!!!

What an idiot. If I live with a roommate who chain smokes three packs a day, that might affect my health, if I get a whiff of smoke in my bathroom after it has passed through floorboards, insulation, drywall, etc. etc. etc. I will not die.

HAHAHAHAHAHA !!! RETARD!

Try this people. If I cared that much, I could get a better job and buy a house. I like to work mediocre jobs and go fishing.

Even stupid lazy people could work harder and improve their situation.

At the root of every problem is personal choices.

If I want a smoke free residence, then I should secure that for myself, not turn to the government.

People think it is okay to make a law, because it stops something bad. Get Real. Everybody in the world thinks their ideas are good.

Nobody supports a law because they consciously actively believe it encourages tyranny.

A child turns to his parent when he wants a sibling to stop something. A man turns to himself.

This applies everywhere. There are people out there who want more support for the arts . . . so they vote in politicians who tax me so I can fund grants for arts. There are people who want more aids research. I don't sleep around or do drugs, why should my taxes help irresponsible people who do.

Man your own ship. All of these obstacles to personal comfort that we encounter because of the reality of other human lives, are like gusts of wind that turn us off course. The skilled sailor learns to navigate his way through stormy seas.

The lazy piece of sh*t turns to the government to try to force the world to be calm water all of the time.

Only children need the strong arm of government, and should children really be allowed to have a say in the government of other human lives?

Answer 1

I understand it completely. The Federal Goverment was created to be a neutral arbiter between the states and disputes between the states. It was never intended to have any intercourse directly with the people.

The Federal government is basically an agent of the states, and as such, state law should reign supreme. In fact, it used to until the states started relinquishing their rights as creators of the federal agent. What has occurred is that the Agent (the federal Government) now supercedes the Principals (the States) which is a tacit violation of contract law, and could be fought by the states if their legislatures had backbone enough to challenge the new status quo. It is purely a breach of contract suit - the contract being the Constitution.

The federal govt. has become our DADDY because the state legislatures did not have the courage to tell the feds to stuff it when their rights started to get eroded. Because the federal govt. is now our daddy, it feels it has the right to dictate to us what it thinks is best for us. Wrong!

What the uniformed dolts who cannot answer this question don't understand is that if they can legislate against smokers today (which is called invidious discrimination - targeting a specific set of individuals), then they can legislate against anyone else tomorrow. So you idiots that stand by and cheer the smokers 'getting theirs' should realize that someday someone else will be cheering you 'getting yours'. That is how the progression goes. Every time they pass a law, we lose a freedom. How many freedoms are you willing to sacrifice before you say enough?

Yes, I completely understand the concept.

Answer 2

In one of my favorite scenes from Star Wars Episode II (unfortunately cut from the theatrical version but included with the deleted scenes on the DVD), Padme Amidala says, "Popular rule is not democracy. It gives the people what they want, but not what they need." I guess they decided this was a little too highbrow for a space opera, but it's an excellent point. The majority may elect a leader, but that doesn't mean that leader has the majority's best interests at heart. People can be swayed by empty promises and party loyalties, and may not realize until it's too late that they've elected a tyrant.

We all owe it to ourselves to learn as much as we can about our leaders before we vote for them. Either party could choose a terrible candidate at any time, so just sticking to the same party all the time is irresponsible. We must all make educated choices if we want democracy to survive.

Answer 3

Well I agree with the idea completely and personally think the government is gaining to much power, abusing that power to usurp more and ultimately is going to force a revolution upon it self, which with todays technology will not be pretty.

However, I would like to point out that Democracy is not ruling by the majority, it is the ruling of the majority of those who participate.

Yes, age old idea. I would like to think people would not go making laws that don't affect them.

Obviously a non-smoker doesn't care if cigarettes are illegal, they may even hate the smell of smoke.

But on the reverse a smoker may very well like the smell of smoke. Is his argument not just as valid? Is his opinion not equal to yours?
(I mean this hypothetical, not referring to you, because you didn't like it, but you didn't ***** about it either. Of course you do hold the right to ask them to smoke outside. They don't have to listen, but you can ask :P)

But yes, I got lost. Uhmmm Basically what I'm saying is we need less government.

Answer 4

That little whiff of smoke, if you disregard it, will eventually turn into an inferno and your apartment will burn to the ground.

Your concept can be described in one word: APATHY. American citizens are like lobsters comfortably languishing in a pot of lukewarm water. As the water starts to boil, we'll start screaming in agony over our own apathy.

That's what's happened to our country. Years ago some unscrupulous politician must have decided to see just how much he could get away with. Then he got away with something else. Then other politicians took liberties with our Constitution, and got away with even more malfeasance. Until - today - we have the most corrupt, evil, incompetent, greedy group of politicians in the world. Nothing more than common whores, they rig the political system so that voters have no choice (other than crooked Republicans or crooked Democrats).

In fact, politicians don't want us to vote because it might decrease their chance of being re-elected. The more times they're elected, the more they can continue to suck off the taxpayers' teat. They have long forgotten that they are supposed to be public servants, and have taken an oath to uphold the laws of the United States of America and to serve the people. NOT the lobbyists, NOT the wealthy elitists, NOT the special interest groups, NOT big business. THE PEOPLE.

And it started with that little wisp of smoke....that comfortable pot of lukewarm water. Americans have no one to blame but themselves for not taking back their country.
___________________________________________________
Check out the new blog book: BUSHWACKER!
www.blogger.com
http://al-aback.blogspot.com
___________________________________________________

Until we get off the couch, put down the remote, and take back our country, nothing will change. While Nero fiddled, Rome burned. While America lounged comfortably in a warm pool of water, our sleazy politicians were turning up the heat.

Amazing what one whiff of cigarette smoke might turn into if you don't do something about it when you first detect the trouble, don't you agree? -RKO-

Answer 5

I think it was Plato who said to have good government, you must have good people.

So you exercised your higher moral beliefs in not interferring in other people's lives.

The problem with democracy is it is rule by the masses, who en mass will usually just vote for their own self interest. That is why the US has a republic, because a true democracy probably wouldn't work. At least until the people are good.

This points us toward an answer, the same answer Plato came up with. We need to educate people to understand that by being moral, we can all live better lives.

Answer 6

A primary purpose of government is to define the rights of citizens, against each other and against itself. (It's a basic function of the Constitution.) In your case, the cigarette smoke was not merely an aesthetic inconvenience -- it was a threat to your health, and as such, government could intervene for your protection. But we have not yet reached the point (and I hope that we don't -- it would be going too far) that smoking is proscribed in private homes. But laws against smoking in public are proliferating.
Aside: Starting in September, Marriott Hotels will prohibit smoking in every room of every hotel in its system.

Answer 7

I see your point, and I agree. It appears that politicians spend so much time and effort catering to those they wish to vote for them that they become beholden to a constituency that, unfortunately, can have irrational demands. People have the right to feel they way they do about one thing or another, but the part of the equation that is left out is that creating legislation to guarantee this person's happiness often infringes on the rights and happiness of others.

Answer 8

Unfortunately democracy devolves into mob rule with the passage of time. The majority learns it can award itself goodies from the gov't which takes them from the minority. Does government ever shrink itself? The best government is the least government.

Answer 9

As far as I am concerend the government should stick to managing the economy, maintaining the military, and expanding the interstate.

Just over half of the people who voted, voted for Bush. That means he has no moral standing to impose his personal beliefs, or even those of his party on those of us who do not agree with him. If you considered the people who did not vote it seems to me that most Americans do not agrre with Bush on most of his moral positions.

Answer 10

No.

Statement 1 appears wrong, democracy is hard to convert to tyranny.

Yes the smoke was kiling you and I don't see any real connections here, sorry.